Scroll down a few pages to results and there's a line that says they believe only 1% of cases are reported.
Furthermore, the red pill I give normies is I ask them for what data stream is being used to determine safety over time of the vaccines. Either they say VAERS or I tell them. I also point that Healthcare providers are legally required to report adverse events to VAERS. They look at go *ackshually, here's a disclaimer from the CDC that VAERS is self reported and unverified! Deboooonked." So that begs the question... what continued tracking with follow up is the CDC doing to determine vaccine safety? The CDC says it's VAERS so if you're saying that's not good enough, then we have NO DATA monitoring safety.
I hate that journalists are so lazy that can't link to the study...
2009 Harvard study: https://digital.ahrq.gov/ahrq-funded-projects/electronic-support-public-health-vaccine-adverse-event-reporting-system
Download the pdf report.
Scroll down a few pages to results and there's a line that says they believe only 1% of cases are reported.
Furthermore, the red pill I give normies is I ask them for what data stream is being used to determine safety over time of the vaccines. Either they say VAERS or I tell them. I also point that Healthcare providers are legally required to report adverse events to VAERS. They look at go *ackshually, here's a disclaimer from the CDC that VAERS is self reported and unverified! Deboooonked." So that begs the question... what continued tracking with follow up is the CDC doing to determine vaccine safety? The CDC says it's VAERS so if you're saying that's not good enough, then we have NO DATA monitoring safety.
Great follow up post realAnon!👈🏻 Thanks for the additional link and context!
You get a cat for that!
u/#catdance
No prob! Great post! Glad healthcare workers know this info too and are speaking up!
Yep it’s more like %0.01 reported.
Almost every MD I talk to doesn’t even know what VAERS is despite there being a wall mounted mention of it.